Why did I stop getting better? (Read 462 times)

Your walking mechanics were determined before you could walk. You learned by observing the other humans around you.

As to efficiency, that's a learned skill. If you were born into a shoe wearing culture, then you can learn to run at least 20% faster simply by retraining your body how to move.

Other humans have done it, why can't you?

I stand by my statement - your comments are mostly pointless. So what if my mechanics were set before I could walk? So what if my genetics put some kind of cap on my abilities?

I agree that efficiency is learned. I stated that it will get better with training. Your statement "Your limits of speed are simply a byproduct of your biomechanic efficiencies" is again, pointless and rather incorrect. Limits are also set by how willing someone is to work hard, family and job obligations, etc. While it is true that the fastest runners are the most efficient, your statement applies mostly to elite level runners. For us mere mortals, there are many factors that come first and efficiency will improve with training.

"Other humans have done it, why can't you?" - I have no idea what you are talking about? Your statement, "Speed isn't a question of how much energy you expend to move forward, its how much energy do you waste to move forward." has a kernel of truth wrapped up in BS. You are addressing efficiency again but couching it is unhelpful BS. Your statement indicates that I can expend 1% of my energy at 99.999% efficiency and set a world record. Perhaps in some world of physics that you live in, there is some truth there. But this has no practical application to running. Stripped of all your pseudo scientific BS: Run more = getting more efficient at running.

I stand by my statement - your comments are mostly pointless. So what if my mechanics were set before I could walk? So what if my genetics put some kind of cap on my abilities?

I agree that efficiency is learned. I stated that it will get better with training. Your statement "Your limits of speed are simply a byproduct of your biomechanic efficiencies" is again, pointless and rather incorrect. Limits are also set by how willing someone is to work hard, family and job obligations, etc. While it is true that the fastest runners are the most efficient, your statement applies mostly to elite level runners. For us mere mortals, there are many factors that come first and efficiency will improve with training.

"Other humans have done it, why can't you?" - I have no idea what you are talking about? Your statement, "Speed isn't a question of how much energy you expend to move forward, its how much energy do you waste to move forward." has a kernel of truth wrapped up in BS. You are addressing efficiency again but couching it is unhelpful BS. Your statement indicates that I can expend 1% of my energy at 99.999% efficiency and set a world record. Perhaps in some world of physics that you live in, there is some truth there. But this has no practical application to running. Stripped of all your pseudo scientific BS: Run more = getting more efficient at running.

Efficiency doesn't come with training. Running builds endurance and strength, and with that comes a very slight improvement in efficiency, but nowhere is it able to improve speed by 20% as I can easily teach to do.

If I were to ask you how far a marathon runner runs, and you tell me its 26.2 miles, then I'd call you a barstool trained moron.

26,2 miles is the map distance of the race, not the distance your body will travel over the duration of any event course.

How high you push yourself up with each step is a variable called your vertical displacement measurement.

How far to the side you push yourself with each step is called your lateral displacement measurement.

Its also biologically impossible for you to walk or run in a straight line which is called your drift rate.

If you don't know the measurements for the above variables within your own running technique, then you'll never understand what it means to be a good runner.

Which is why as a scientist, I can tell you that your body travels much further than the map distance of any race. I call it the map to reality ratio.

In fact in a laboratory, I can put a marker on your head and let you run on a treadmill and map the difference for anyone using a video camera. Using extrapolating software, your body actually runs in a figure eight pattern as you move forward. In fact my favorite example of running idiot is the current media darling named Daniel Lieberman. At 1:45, you can watch is head and see for yourself what a pathetic fool looks like running.

Oh, and its also for his stupidity, his shoe sponsor Vibram is getting their asses sued in a class action lawsuit. Funny that no barefoot running coach in the world mentions that fact in any of their barfing.

Understanding that reality is the difference between fraud and real science is what I teach.

So while the elite runners travel between 30-32 miles in a marathon race, you travel anywhere from 36-39 miles in a race event. Even the writer of this article only mentions vertical and lateral displacement measurements. He isn't smart enough to understand running drift.

Specifics for you: There are six running techniques documented to exist in the human species. Kenyans are better distance runners than you are(born, raised, and trained in a shoe wearing culture), African pygmies are faster than you are, the aborigines are better sprinters than you are (yes even faster than Usain Bolt). And for agility skills, the Porters of Nepal far exceed their shoe wearing counterparts for cutting skills and protecting themselves from ACL tears.

And yet since no "expert" in running can duplicate such abilities, even though they're documented to exist, is why improving by 20% in reality is so easy to do.

That your ego is too fragile to try a different approach is your problem, not mine.

Or you can start with the masking tape exercise of this story link I use with my athletic and military clients and introduce yourself to how the best runners in the world actually run.

You can prove to yourself in less than 10 minutes if what I teach is legitimate for yourself. Or you can keep reading advice from people with absolutely no education in biomechanics at all and continue wondering why you can't become a better runner.

A data point does not equal science. In most instances, a significant outlier that isn't reproducible means that a variable is being missed. If it's easy to reproduce, then reproduce it, and people will take it seriously.

Oh boy! Aborigines are faster than Usain Bolt. Funny, I didn't see them on the line at the past two Olympics or World Championships. Perhaps I was watching the wrong channel. Crappy cable company.

Back to the topic and away from the side show carnival barking for a second.

From personal experience, I lean towards being a bit stale. I've found myself falling into training ruts. Once I change up things a bit it helps for improvement. Also, adding drills helped too. Pete Magill (a real coach and wicked fast racer) has some for us old folks at http://petemagill.blogspot.com/ which links to more information at Running Times. Of course he's no scientist so take Magill's advice with a grain of salt.

"He conquers who endures" - Persius "Every workout should have a purpose. Every purpose should link back to achieving a training objective." - Spaniel

Again, everyone gets that you've made a hypothesis and why you've made that hypothesis. It's an interesting one, and, frankly, I wouldn't be overly surprised if you found some good methods. That's still not science, it's just an inference. Other than that, you've told us that various people and groups have taken an interest in your hypothesis. None seem to actually use it, so we don't have any data at all. That's how science works.